I'm reading the report on the Farber-Cerf discussion on "net neutrality".
I am struck by the innocence and irony of the discussion - particularly Cerf's comments.
It seems that Vint has forgotten that he is chairman of the board of an oppressive and heavy handed internet regulatory body that is most decidedly not-neutral.
ICANN has established a regime in which just about everyone who wants to do anything in the domain name marketplace, whether as seller or buyer, has to do so according to ICANN's rules. Those rules have crushed the life out of new domain name ideas and new domain name business methods.
I, for one, strongly believe that that net neutrality laws are necessary to protect end users from the predatory practices of edge providers who seek to leverage infrastructures that were enabled, and largely paid for, by monopoly positions. So I agree with Vint's positions.
However, I believe that Vint's statements would carry more weight if ICANN, the organization that he chairs, were not itself a very real example of the anti-innovative kind of non-neutrality that we both so fear.Posted by karl at July 18, 2006 1:18 AM